So suppose a woman is walking alone along a dark road.

[DanTex]

101. Neither did I, but from what I've seen/read, I can't really argue that there wasn't reasonable doubt

I'm not familiar with exactly what "reasonable doubt" means, but it appears to me that, given the lack of eyewitnesses, of course there's going to be reasonable doubt. I mean, who knows just how hard TM was hitting Z? Maybe TM really did snap and try to kill Z? It's possible.

My problems with the outcome are more general. TM is dead, he most likely didn't do anything wrong (or too wrong), and nobody is held responsible. Z, on the other hand, took actions that led to TM's death. I'd say there's a 10% or maybe 20% chance he was actually in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger -- unlikely, but enough for reasonable doubt. But if he hadn't been stalked and confronted TM to begin with, none of this would have happened. Somehow the whole thing feels wrong, and since I can't really find fault in the jury's reasoning about reasonable doubt, I'm blaming the Florida laws.

In terms of your "only" question, first of all, wouldn't SYG obviate that whole issue? If I understand SYG correctly, even if Z had other options besides deadly force (i.e. retreat), he's still allowed to "stand his ground" and use deadly force, as long as he reasonably feels he's in danger. But beyond that, even if the standard was that deadly force must be the only option, how does one prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, when there are no witnesses?